Category: Movie Reviews

Lincoln
Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Rated PG-13 for an intense scene of war violence, some images of carnage and brief strong language

    When Spielberg originally envisioned a movie about Lincoln, it was to be a huge biopic encompassing the life of the great man who would be portrayed by Liam Neeson.  A lot changed though when playwright and screenwriter Tony Kushner (Angels in America) got ahold of the project.  Unable to narrow down the huge story of the life of Lincoln, he and Spielberg opted to just tell the story of the last few months of the Civil War and how Lincoln managed to get the 14th Amendment passed in Congress. 

    There are many things about this project which will make audiences flock to it.  First off is the story.  The events of the tale might be 150 years old, but they couldn’t be more relevant to today’s political climate.  It seems our country has always been one in which the leaders bicker and fight over principals and values even though history will most undoubtedly show some of the principals and values to be not just antiquated, but immoral.  Kushner’s screenplay is masterfully written and while the film comes in at almost 149 minutes, it seems that every minute is earned and the time flies by faster than you’d think. 

    Of course it helps having Spielberg at the helm.  You can tell that this is a project that he cares deeply about and his heart and soul went into it.  This  is his finest film since 1998’s Saving Private Ryan and he is sure to get a lot of attention come awards season.  To help him along here is the work by his long term collaborators cinematographer Janusz Kaminski and composer John Williams.  The color palate Kaminski uses here which contrasts between subdued colors and harsh shadows gives the viewer the imminent sense of danger our country was in at that time.  When combined with William’s remarkable score filled with beautiful piano driven melodies and lush brass choirs that perfectly matches the film’s feel and mood, you get a rich sense of texture that leads to a film filled with gorgeous art.

Cloud Atlas
Starring Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent and Hugh Grant
Directed by Tom Tykwer (Perfume), Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski (The Matrix)
Rated R for violence, language, sexuality/nudity and some drug use

    There are many movies out there with several interconnecting stories.  Some have been excellent examples of filmmaking such as Stephen Daldry’s The Hours and Richard Curtis’s Love Actually.  Then again some have been disasters, such as many of the films trying to copy these two.  Cloud Atlas is different.  Very different.  Yes there are several stories unfolding at the same time, but the connection between them is more complicated.  Based on the book by David Mitchell, Atlas attempts to show how one’s actions in the past and present can impact the future, while simultaneously telling several stories told throughout time with very loosely connected themes. 

    With such an ambitious film, it is hard to figure out how to tackle it.  Having not read the book first, I found the best way was to try to follow the individual stories and sort it all out later.  Most of the tales are very entertaining and they each encompass their own genre with very little relatable between them.  I found each of the stories to be watchable although only one of them really stood out for me.  The fifth story-line takes place more than a 100 years in the future in a city called Neo Seoul and follows the life of what we can assume is a cloned human, or fabricant, named Somni-451 who finds herself thrown into a rebellion.  It is the only individual story that has the potential to stand up on its own, but then I don’t think that is the point. 

    The point of the film is to show how each person’s life has an effect on their next life and how all of these lives come together.  Each actor plays multiple parts, both male and female, in this menagerie of adventures.  For example, Tom Hanks goes from playing a sordid physician, to a lowly hotel manager, to a scientist willing to betray his corrupt boss, to a violent gangster, and finally to the hero of the story in the far distant future.  It’s enough to keep you exhausted.  But it’s also a lot of fun.  Trying to keep up isn’t that difficult if you just let go and come to the realization that you might have to watch the film a time or two more to really comprehend it.  At least that’s the way I felt.  I left the theater wanting to watch it again, even though it is almost 3 hours long.  Fortunately, the film earns its long running time as the pacing is outstanding for a project of such immensity. 

    What really helps the film keep things together is the passion each of the actors puts into their roles.  That tells me they were having fun making the movie and that there is something to it.  And while I couldn’t figure it all out with one viewing, I fully expect there to many more until I finally do.

Argo
Starring Ben Affleck, Alan Arkin and John Goodman
Directed by Ben Affleck (The Town)
Rated R for language and some violent images

    Based on a recently declassified true story, Argo tells the tale of a heroic CIA agent named Tony Mendez (Affleck) who goes undercover as a Canadian filmmaker pretending to make a B-movie named Argo in Iran in order to attempt to rescue six Americans hiding out at the Canadian ambassador’s home during the Iran hostage crisis. 

    This film is good for many reasons, but one thing makes it stand out: tension.  This film is the very essence of intensity.  From the beginning of the movie where the Iranians rush the embassy, to the final moments of the film, there is an ominous and urgent feeling that something any second could go wrong and ruin everything.  In screenwriting you are taught to build conflict into every scene, but here the screenwriter, Chris Terrio, takes that concept to an extreme with the help of the masterful direction of Affleck.  For example, Agent Mendez has to take the six Americans, disguised as Canadian filmmakers, into a crowded market and have them pretend to be scouting out the area for the film they are supposed to be making.  Already nervous from being out in the open for the first time, the audience would have been scared enough if nothing had happened and they had merely just walked through, but first they are asked difficult questions which could give away their true identities and then an Iranian man begins yelling at them and making a fuss for taking a Polaroid of his shop.  And when you compound that with such high stakes and dramatic music, its a wonder you still have fingernails after the movie.

    With a film such as this it helps to have the perfect cast, and indeed it does.  It’s uncanny how much the actual actors resemble the real-life people they are playing.  Fortunately, they aren’t just a cast of doppelgängers, but rather an extremely talented ensemble turning in great performances. 

Looper
Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt
Directed by Rian Johnson (Brick)
Rated R for strong violence, language, some sexuality/nudity and drug content

    In the year 2072, time travel is possible but highly illegal.  When the mob wants to get rid of someone, they send them back in time 30 years where one of a wild group of wannabe gangsters is waiting with a gun and a plastic liner to take out the garbage.  Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is one of these so-called loopers who periodically waits in the country, armed with his stopwatch and blunderbuss, for one of these victims to be sent back so he can kill them and collect the ransom for their body.  But when the person sent back in time is his future self (Willis), young Joe is thrown off guard and accidentally allows old Joe to escape.  Knowing that its either kill old Joe, or he himself will be killed, he goes on a mission to save his present life from his future. 

    If that description sounds convoluted and complicated then just wait.  That is just scratching the surface.  This is one absolutely crazy sci-fi film that is almost as much fun to figure out as it is to watch.  The story is highly original and the whole production is so well put together that it is hard to imagine any sci-fi fan that wouldn’t enjoy thoroughly.

    That being said, while the film is easily classified as sci-fi, it has a low-budget, almost indie feel to it that makes it come across in a more organic fashion than your average sci-fi pic.  The problem is that at times this low-budget nature is distracting like when the main child in the film is wearing the same pajamas that we bought for our two-year-old at Costco.  Or the sword in the room is the same foam sword we bought at target.  Any time the production team is sent to the local store to buy clothes and props for a film that takes place decades in the future, then you know that there are monetary constraints involved.  But still, the story overcomes any of the little distractions that might pop up. 

    But even a great story like this can’t cover up Gordon-Levitt’s nose, which they tried desperately to give a Bruce Willis look.  The problem is that it just doesn’t appear right and you end up staring at his nose wondering what they were thinking.  My question is, couldn’t they think up a plot device like maybe Old Joe got a nose job in the future in order to avoid detection?  Why did they have to give us a familiar actor who has a distracting facial issue. 

The Possession
Starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Kyra Sedgwick, Natasha Calis and Matisyahu
Directed by Ole Bornedal
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material involving violence and disturbing sequences

    When a divorced father (Morgan) spends time with his daughters one weekend, the youngest daughter, (Calis) buys an antique box that seems to be calling her name.  Unbeknownst to the family, the box is a dybbuk, or a container of an evil spirit excised by a Rabi.  As the young girl starts to become possessed, the father must figure out how to save his little girl before she is lost.

    Everything outside of this film is quite frightening.  The poster is scary, the trailer sends goosebumps and the “true” story it is based on will make you wish you didn’t have that knowledge floating around in your head.  So how could the film not be scary?  I don’t know the answer to this but it succeeds in being another completely lame demon possession movie, for which we have seen too many of late.  I’m a big fan of The Exorcist and even the first two Paranormal Activity films, but since Paranormal’s wild success, these kinds of movies are so common they almost deserve their own sub-genre, and yet most of them are bad or worse. 

    Does the film have potential?  Possibly.  I think they definitely could have made it creepier.  Once you’ve seen the fingers coming out of the throat in the trailer, nothing else really gets you here.  Maybe if the little girl were a bit more evil instead of just strange?  I’m not a horror writer, so I can’t tell you exactly how to improve the script, and if they had hired a decent horror writer this would be a much different review.

    I can tell you that hiring good actors would have been a big boost to the films enjoyability.  Morgan is solid as the father, but Sedgwick, Matisyahu and much of the supporting cast are just laughable.  But in their defense, they didn’t have a great script to work from either. 

Lawless
Starring Shia LaBeouf, Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce
Directed by John Hillcoat (The Road)
Rated R for strong bloody violence, language and some sexuality/nudity

    Set in the world of illegal bootlegging in Prohibition-era Franklin County, Virginia, three brothers (LaBeouf, Hardy and Jason Clarke) who run a successful still are on top of the world until a corrupt official (Pearce) attempts to try to take his share of their earnings.  

    Over the past few years I have become quite a fan of director John Hillcoat.  His films The Proposition and The Road are two of my favorites from the last decade.  He has a knack for taking gritty projects and making them so real you can practically wipe the dirt off the screen.  If you haven’t seen those two films, check them out.  But I recommend you avoid Lawless.  You could easily accuse me of bringing in too high of an expectation, and you’d probably be right.  After all, you have a director with vision combined with an artistic writer (Nick Cave) and a cast full of solid actors.  So I would say I have a right to my lofty expectations.  I’m just sad that the film fell way short.  

    So here’s one of the problems – the film isn’t bad, but it’s not great either.  Part of the issue is that while the cast is very good, the actors either aren’t right for the roles or the choices the actors make for their characters aren’t right for the film.  Shia LaBeouf seems like he is trying too hard.  Guy Pearce seems like he is in the wrong movie.  Jessica Chastain is too clean, too out of place.  I do think Tom Hardy and Mia Wasikowska were well chosen but their performances would have been so much better had the rest of the cast been appropriate.  Gary Oldman is the only actor who really knocks it out.  Unfortunately he’s only in the film for a few minutes.  Which brings me to my second problem.

    The script by Nick Cave is not terrific.  There are some great elements to the film and some unforgettable visuals (not sure who gets the credit there) but overall the script makes the film seem as if it is trying too hard to be a Coen Brothers film and not a John Hillcoat project.  Don’t get me wrong, I love the sense of humor that permeates throughout much of the picture, but I failed to reach an emotional connection to any of the characters.  I was okay with any of them dying.  Even when your heroes are criminals – that’s not a good thing.  Also, one thing that can make a mediocre film great is an evil villain and Pearce as the antagonist is more annoying than evil.  I love a good maniacal bad guy but the character Pearce brings to the screen I just want to flick in the head and tell him to go away.  The one character I am afraid of here is Gary Oldman’s gang leader.  I just wish they had found a way to make him a more pivotal part of the story and cast.  

Celeste and Jesse Forever
Starring Rashida Jones, Andy Samberg and Elijah Wood
Directed by Lee Toland Krieger
Rated R for language, sexual content and drug use

    Jesse and Celeste (Jones and Samberg) appear to be a couple madly in love.  They are touchy-feely to an extreme all the while making cute voices together and completely annoying their friends.  They seem to be the happiest couple on Earth.  Here’s the catch: they are getting a divorce.  They have decided that they are better friends than lovers and it is time to leave their romantic relationship behind.  

    The unromantic romantic comedy was bound to happen.  After all, a very large percentage of real life love stories don’t end happily ever after – so why should they in the movies?  I’ll admit that it’s a clever premise with a lot of promise.  So you’re probably wondering – why is this on Sony’s independent label, Sony Pictures Classics, rather than Sony’s premiere label?  Why is this showing in art house theaters instead of the local megaplex?  My only guess is that even though it has some decent mainstream stars and an interesting plot, it is far from a mainstream movie.  

    When you think of a film like this its easy to picture a horrid and depressing movie that will make you cry and leave you hating the opposite sex.  Luckily for the audience, the subject matter is heavy but there are enough jokes thrown in to keep it light.

    The relationship itself is easy enough to believe.  Celeste and Jesse still love each other very much, but Celeste has a great career and Jesse is a slacker.  She doesn’t think she can handle a relationship like that, leaving divorce to be the option.  But when she starts to look at both her age and the men available for her, and when she sees that Jesse’s options seem much brighter, a story unfolds that provides for a lot of honest emotion and empathy.  

The Amazing Spider-Man
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Sally Field, Martin Sheen and Rhys Ifans
Directed by Marc Webb ((500) Days of Summer)
Rated PG-13 for sequences of action and violence

    Much like Sam Raimi’s 2002 Spider-Man, this new reboot attempts to tell the genesis of everyone’s favorite webbed crime fighter with a different vision.  Just like the other version, Peter Parker is a bullied young high schooler who lives with his aunt and uncle.  When he is bitten by a radioactive spider, he gains new abilities that allow him to become a vigilante hero. 

    If you are like me, when you found out that Spider-Man was getting remade just a decade after it became a hit, you probably had to scratch your head a bit.  After all, while the third film wasn’t too terribly great, the franchise was still fairly fresh and it hadn’t fizzled like the Batman franchise had before Christopher Nolan took over.  All I knew was that I really liked director Marc Webb’s (500) Days of Summer and I thought the world of Andrew Garfield, who had wowed me in The Social Network, Never Let Me Go and the Red Riding Trilogy.  But was starting up a new vision of my favorite childhood hero necessary? 

    In order for the film to work it needed to be different enough from Raimi’s vision and it had to hold some surprises.  In this new reincarnation, Peter Parker is much more of a rebel and more street savvy than Toby McGuire.  This gives Spider-Man a new angle and a fresh perspective.  This new creation isn’t anywhere near the leap that Nolan took in Batman, but the new vision does work effectively and should keep fans happy enough. 

    One thing I really liked about the script is that it explores Peter’s relationship with his father rather than just his aunt and uncle.  The pain and anguish he suffers over the loss of his father is truly felt and the dialog is well-written in this regard.  You get the sense that you are watching a troubled teen with a secret that really suffers internally. 

    Of course it helps to have a great young actor such as Andrew Garfield.  You may not know his name now, but he is a future star.  He’s been nominated for a Golden Globe (and should have had an Oscar nom as well) for his role in The Social Network and at the age of 28 he has already turned in loads of great performances.  His performance here is one of the big highlights of the movie.  He embodies Peter Parker perfectly and carries the movie to a level it couldn’t have achieved without him. 

    What are the detractors here?  As soon as I start talking about all of the technical problems and the “that couldn’t have happened because” I would be able to see your eyes roll through the newspaper.  So I’ll just say that there were many liberties taken and a whole lot of “who cares – if we don’t understand it they certainly won’t” talk done on the script.  And then all you have to say is “ Danny – it’s a movie about a man-spider” and I would be forced to hang my head in shame because you’d be right.  So let’s just say there are a few unbelievables I found to be distracting, but I’m sure they really wouldn’t matter to 99% of you and you might even think less of me for mentioning them. 

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
Starring Benjamin Walker, Dominic Cooper and Anthony Mackie
Directed by Timur Bekmambetov (Wanted)
Rated R for violence throughout and brief sexuality

    When novelist Seth Grahame-Smith’s first mash-up was released (Pride and Prejudice and Zombies) it seemed like a joke was being made, but then it became a joke that many readers wanted in on.  Then came his novel about our 16th president who doubles as a vampire killer and suddenly Hollywood came a knocking.  You might think that this attempt at humor and horror is very tongue in cheek, and you’d be correct, but behind it all lies an extremely entertaining movie. 

    Vampire Hunter follows young Abe, who as a boy saw his mother killed by a vampire.  Once he became a man, according to this take on history, he went after the vamp that killed his mother and upon losing the battle, vowed to commit his life to the destruction of the vampire species. 

    As I write this description of the film, I feel the silliness pour over me, but yet going in to the movie with an open mind, I found myself enjoying it immensely.  There is just enough actual history thrown in to make you explore wikipedia for an hour after the movie.  And while much liberty was taken, the vampiric events were cleverly disguised.  And that creativity is part of what makes this movie so interesting. 

    What makes this film work isn’t the gimmick though; its the product of finding the perfect director.  Bekmambetov’s films have always been visual masterpieces and Lincoln is his best to date.  His vision for the film takes what seems on the outside like a joke and instead becomes one heck of a thrill ride.  And the production team assembled here tells a story that is as visually exciting as it is cheesy.

    With a very few exceptions, 3D in movies is completely wasted and just a way for the studios to take in premium bucks for mediocre fare.  That is not the case here.  The 3D in this film is spectacular.  It adds such an incredible element to the movie that I will go as far as to say the film shouldn’t be seen in 2D.

Brave
Starring the voices of Kelly MacDonald, Billy Connolly and Emma Thompson
Directed by Mark Andrews
Rated PG for some scary action and rude humor

    For a year now we’ve been watching the trailers for this much anticipated Pixar film, and if you are a Pixar fan boy like me, you have been watching with great impatience.  From the outset the trailer played the film to be a simple story about a girl who doesn’t wish to have the arranged marriage her parents want for her.  And then something with bears.  Confusing, I know, but faith in the legendary animation house would have have you knowing full well that Pixar has a great story up its sleeve and you just have to wait till June 22 to find out what it is.  Unfortunately, there is nothing up Pixar’s sleeve here.  The film is just what the trailer portrays it to be: a beautiful spoiled princess who doesn’t wish to obey the will of her parents.  And then something with bears.

    You might think I’m being a bit cruel to a film that looks so good and has such a fine pedigree.  I’ll agree that the studio has turned in some of the best films of the last twenty years including Wall-E, Up, the Toy Story trilogy, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille and my personal favorite Monster’s, Inc.  The reason for their success over the years has more to do with their meticulous story process than their relationship to Disney and the late Steve Jobs.  Until Cars 2 (of which I was one of the few critics who enjoyed apparently) their stories were perfect.  Wonderful characters in imaginative settings with stunning animation to support. Brave only delivers the stunning animation.  The look of the film is without doubt, beautiful.  The colors are rich and the cinematography could match any live action film ever released. 

    So my question is why did they skimp on the story?  There is huge potential here for a complex tale that would leave everyone satisfied.  And since the running time is only a mere 93 minutes, there was plenty of time to include a broader tale.  After all, most of the other Pixar films clock in at around two hours.

    I’m perfectly fine with a girl who wants to be free, but free from what?  This spoiled little rich girl offers no alternative.  She doesn’t have another option for her parents, such as maybe the butcher’s son who could prove himself.  What does she want to be free to do?  Ride around on her horse and shoot arrows at trees?  Climb waterfalls?  Couldn’t she still do that?  There needs to be a much stronger motivation for her temper tantrum than what is provided. 

    And where is the villain?  A film like this needs a great villain.  The witch would have made perfect sense.  The magically converted bears make very little sense and the story behind them should have been fleshed out to a greater extent.  Instead we are left with a nonsensical journey of a pretty little brat. 

    I will fully admit that should you take this film and compare it to the fare of other studios, it can hold its own.  But I’m not alone in that I expect much more from the folks at Pixar.  If you are a teacher with a brilliant student and suddenly she turns in lazy work, you would be harder on that student than you would an average student turning in the same quality.